Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-12-12-Speech-3-369"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071212.34.3-369"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, in relation to this important own-initiative report on the Commission White Paper on investment funds, our position is that we have decided by general agreement to focus on the non-legislative aspects, given that the legislative proposal for revision of the UCITS III Directive will be tabled in early 2008. That said, the issues we have decided to address are vitally important to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities.
There is a risk that extending the range of eligible assets to include open property funds and alternative funds could mar the excellent worldwide reputation of UCITS products and negatively affect their distribution both within the European Union and to third countries. To avoid any detriment to the investment fund industry in Europe, Parliament has asked the Commission to conduct an in-depth study of the possible consequences of including these non-harmonised retail funds among the assets eligible for branding as UCITS.
Investments in UCITS total thousands of billions of euros and account for around 80% of the investment fund market in Europe. The sector is impatiently awaiting revision of the UCITS Directive. To prevent any unnecessary and counter-productive delay with that revision, however, Parliament has clearly proposed that no extension of eligible assets should take place until legislative reform of the UCITS Directive is complete. On behalf of my group, I have consistently urged that line and I welcome the rapporteur’s readiness to compromise.
The report also calls for the creation of a harmonised framework for private placements within the Union, and I fully support its recommendations on that point.
The private placement regime needs to be based on an accurate definition of qualified investors, as provided for in the MiFID Directive. Properly informed and qualified investors eligible to practise private placement should not, under any circumstances, face a bureaucratic surcharge as a result of rules that are not only unnecessary but actually counterproductive.
I have to oppose the Socialists’ amendment calling for equivalence between Member States’ systems of regulation and supervision in the context of applying the private placement regime, which would entail permitting reciprocal access to markets. This kind of equivalence across Europe is simply unrealistic.
I must also highlight one point on which my group and I disagree with the rapporteur. It concerns paragraph 19 on the question of so-called ‘guarantee funds’. The very concept of these funds is controversial and we tried to protest at the mistaken definition of them. I hope we shall manage to lose that paragraph. I must nonetheless congratulate the rapporteur on the quality of his work, which enables us to prepare properly for the legislative proposal. It means we can now look forward with equanimity to the work that lies ahead next year."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples